We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2011
As the starting-point of this paper I take the question, When did the Church come into existence? It is a question to which a great variety of answers is given; but they can be classified in two groups according to whether they put the birth of the Church before or after the death of Christ. These two groups again correspond roughly with two ways of thinking about the Church. We may think of it primarily as an organization with a function to perform; and in that case we shall think—as I do—of its coming into being at the moment that Jesus called his first disciple. Or we may think of it as a body of people who possess a certain status before God—forgiven sinners, redeemed persons or the like—and in that case we shall tend to think of its coming into being as a sequel to the completed redemptive work of Christ on the Cross.
page 2 note 1 On this see the illuminating discussion by W. Manson, Jesus the Messiah, 110 ff.
page 2 note 2 Against the genuineness of verses 17–19 Bultmann, R., Das Urchristentum (1949) 241 n. 32Google Scholar. But see for a more cautious estimate of verse 17 E. Klostermann, Das Matthäusevangelium 2, 40 L; A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthäus, 151ñ4; T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, 153 f.; R. Gutzwiller, Jesus der Messias, 91 f.
page 2 note 3 cf. Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums 3, i. 267–77.
page 2 note 4 cf. G. Quispel, De Bronnen van Tertullianus' Adversus Marcionem, 60 ff.
page 3 note 1 Even here I should maintain that the word ‘disciple’ in the Gospels means more than talmìd in the Rabbinical literature. See T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus, 237–40.
page 3 note 2 cf. Mt. xviii. 5; Lk. xvii. 3; Mt. xxiii. 8; xxv. 40; Lk. xxii. 32.
page 4 note 1 Gen. ii. 23 f., of man and wife; 2 Sam. v. 1, of king and people, cf. xix. 12 f.; Gen. xxxvii. 27, of Joseph and his brethren; Neh. v. 5 (cf. Is. lviii. 7), of Hebrews in relation to their fellow-countrymen; Rom. xi. 14, of Paul and the Jewish people.
page 4 note 2 cf. Christian Worship (ed. N. Micklem), 44–9.
page 4 note 3 Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom, ch. xxxviii. For something similar in Greek cf. W. W. Tarn, Hellenistic Civilisation, 44 f.
page 5 note 1 Mk. i. 17; Lk. v. 10. Cf. A. J. Festugière, Epicure et ses Dieux, 63.
page 5 note 2 Mk. iii. 14 f., where the Twelve are appointed (a) to be the companions of Jesus and (b) to be sent out, from time to time on missions of preaching and healing. The tense of ποστλλῃ suggests that more than one such mission is contemplated. The passage is discussed by Ed. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums, i. 136, a good example of hypercriticism which creates difficulties where they do not exist.
page 5 note 3 Mk. vi. 6–13; Lk. x. 2 f, 8–16 with parallels in Mt. ix. 37 f.; x. 15 f., 40; xi. 20–4 (Q.); Mt. x. 5–8, 9–16, 23–25 (M); Lk. x. 1, 4–7, 17–20 (L). For an analysis and discussion of the Q, M, and L accounts of the mission of the disciples see my Sayings of Jesus, 73–8, 179–84, 256–9.
page 5 note 4 Lk. x. 16 ‖ Mt. x. 40 (Q.); cf. Mk. ix. 37 ‖s; Mk. ix. 41; Mt. x. 41 f.; Mk. viii. 34ñix. 1 ‖s; Mk. x. 38 f.; Lk. xxii. 28–30 (L).
page 5 note 6 Mk. viii. 31–3; ix. 30–2; x. 32–4.
page 6 note 1 See the Targum on Hos. vi. 2 f. and the Rabbinical passages cited by Billerbeck, i. 747. The second of the XVIII Benedictions in the Babylonian recension may well have been influenced by these verses. See Billerbeck, iv. 213 ff.
page 6 note 2 57d ed. Theodor, 1129 f.
page 6 note 3 cf. Lk. xxiv. 21; Ac. i. 6; 2 Cor. v. 16. On this last see F. C. Baur, Vorlesungen über ntl. Theologie, 131 and E. B. Allo, Seconde Epitre aux Corinthiens, 180.
page 7 note 1 I Cor. i. 23. Cf. M. Simon, Verus Israel, 190 f.
page 7 note 2 cf. L. Atzberger, Geschichte der christlichen Eschatologie, 186–9.
page 7 note 3 An examination of the passages in the Greek Bible where ρνομαι and παρνομαι are employed shows that these verbs are hardly used at all of the denial of matters of fact. Commonly the object of the verb is God or the Law or Israel or, in the N.T., Christ. Denial is refusal to recognize the claims of a person or institution upon one's loyalty and service. The formula which occurs in Wisdom, xii. 27; xvi. 16, ρνɛσθαι ɛἰδναι c. ace. pers. may actually reflect Jewish practice in making disclaimers. Cf. Lk. xiii. 27; Mt. vii. 23; Billerbeck, iv. 293; Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthäus, 261. To deny self is then to say no to the claims of self.
page 8 note 1 Mk. x. 43 f. ‖s; cf. Mk. ix. 35 ‖ Lk. ix. 48; Mt. xxiii. 11.
page 8 note 2 Mt. x. 8; Lk. xvii. 10.
page 8 note 3 Mk. viii. 33 is typical. Cf. Ac. i. 6.
page 9 note 1 ‘Der eigentliche Schlüssel zum Verständnis des Wesens des Judentums liegt in dem Glaubenslehrsatz: “Gott hat Israel zu seinem Volke erwählt.“ ’ Kaufmann Kohler, quoted by W. C. van Unnik, Nederl. Theol. Tijds. 3 (1949) 347 n. 3.Google Scholar
page 9 note 2 Eph. ii. 19 states the case simply and clearly. On σνμπολιτɛα cf. L. Robert, Villes d'Asie Mineure, 54 ff.; W. W. Tarn, Hellenistic Civilisation, 67 f., 76 f. No doubt it was easier for Paul to entertain ideas of this kind because of his own multiple citizenship in the Empire, in Israel, and in the messianic community.
page 9 note 3 Clem. Al. Exc. ex. Theod. 56, 3 ed. F. Sagnard, 172 ff. τ⋯ μ⋯ν οὖν πνɛυματικ⋯ν φ⋯σσɛι, σῳζ⋯ɛνον τ⋯ δ⋯ ψυχικ⋯ν, αὐτɛζο⋯σιον ⋯7nu;, ⋯πιηδɛιο⋯τητα ἔχɛι πρ⋯ς τɛ π⋯στιν κα⋯ ⋯φθαρσ⋯αν, κα⋯ πρ⋯ς ⋯πιοτ⋯αν κα⋯ φθορ⋯ν κατ⋯ τ⋯ν ο⋯ρɛ⋯αν αἴρɛσιν τ⋯ δ⋯ ὐλικ⋯ɛι ⋯π⋯λλυται. Cf. Sagnard's Introduction, pp. 21–7; G. Quispel, De Bronnen van Tertullianus’ Adversut Marcionem, 101.
page 10 note 1 History of the Primitive Church, iii. 507.
page 10 note 2 Op. cit., iii. 532.
page 10 note 3 Particularly in the de Pudicitia. Cf. G. Bardy, La Théologie de l'Eglise, i. 146 f.; P.de Labriolle, La Crise Montaniste, 293–465.
page 10 note 4 Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums 3, i. 387 ff.; cf. E. Lohmeyer, Vom Begriff der religiōsen Gemeinschaft, 10–21.
page 10 note 5 Op. cit., 390 f.
